Kutaragi swears PS3 can do 120FPS

[njiska]

...and pigs can fly.

I understand Sony's hype based strategy, but with how things have been lately does any one beleive it any more?

I'm sure some posters will derail this thread before any serious discussion get's going but honestly, do you beleive the hype?

Sony said Killzone was really time running on PS3 hardware, turns out that was most likely not true.

Ken Kutaragi claims the PS3 will be playable at TGS. Sony's offical line, "Sorry but we wanted to create the sense of awe we had at E3" Guess the real-time stuff isn't that impressive.

Now according to another recent article, i beleive it was on Kotaku (www.kotaku.com), it now appears that we won't even see playable games this year.

Not to be out done, now Ken kutaragi has again come out and said that the PS3 can run at 120FPS so it's ready for the next gen of TV's (Link (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html)).

Considering Sony's smoke and mirror history, does anyone think this is true, or just another statement ment to steal the thunder away from Microsoft. More so if Sony ever get's caught in a lie do you think it'll actually matter?

Does Ken even mean 120FPS at 1080p or at plain old 480i?

[Gamereviewgod]

I remember reading humans can't detect more than 60 fps. Is that true, and if so, who cares if it can do 120?

[CreamSoda]

What a load of shit... LOL

[njiska]

I remember reading humans can't detect more than 60 fps. Is that true, and if so, who cares if it can do 120?

It seems to me that the average person see's approximately 60 fps, give or take, but the important thing is that as long as the rate is higher then the human i can notice, it will look incredibly smooth.

[§ Gideon §]

120 FPS running Pong? Running anything? Running at what resolution? Logical FPS or observed FPS?

This "official" statement gives more questions than answers. I fart in Kutaragi's general direction.

Besides, it's all about the gigaflops.

[goatdan]

I remember reading humans can't detect more than 60 fps. Is that true, and if so, who cares if it can do 120?

It seems to me that the average person see's approximately 60 fps, give or take, but the important thing is that as long as the rate is higher then the human i can notice, it will look incredibly smooth.

The human eye can register about 30 FPS (I forget where I read this, but I'm sure it is somewhere online). The reason games shoot for 60 is because the human eye can tell the difference between the two, while still only seeing the 30. Something about when the eye registers it being slightly different.

120 is for practical purposes useless as far as I know. But hey, the 64-bit Jaguar sounded four times better than the 16-bit SNES, right? It's all about the marketing.


120 FPS running Pong? Running anything? Running at what resolution? Logical FPS or observed FPS?

This "official" statement gives more questions than answers. I fart in Kutaragi's general direction.

Besides, it's all about the gigaflops.

No, it's all about the bits man.

When I run Doom 3 on my laptop and am sitting completely still with FPS sensing mode on, it states that I am getting 100-120 FPS. It doesn't really matter though.

[thegreatescape]

I remember reading humans can't detect more than 60 fps. Is that true, and if so, who cares if it can do 120?

At 120fps there would be virtually no slow-down. When a game running at 60/30 fps slows down you notice it, but at 120 fps theres so much headspace you would have to choke it to death to notice.

[Querjek]

I've read before that the human mind can only interpret up to 72 fps before seeing a degradation in the quality because it can't register enough data.

[davidbrit2]

I heard the PS3 will be able to dispense bilingual ponies that shit gold. For real.

[Mr Mort]

I heard the PS3 will be able to dispense bilingual ponies that shit gold. For real.

BILINGUAL? What kind of sub-standard shit is that? It's got to be trilingual, or no sale.


Seriously though, it's all vaporware, smoke and mirrors.
This is what Sony does. They hype the shit out of everything. Right now, all they're trying to do is steal a little bit of the 360's thunder.
As far as I'm concerned, the PS3 does not exist, it's vaporware. Sony has shown us zero evidence to back up any of their claims. No gameplay footage, no playable demos, not even a final controller design. I'm not holding my breath on any promises they make.

[njiska]

I heard the PS3 will be able to dispense bilingual ponies that shit gold. For real.

BILINGUAL? What kind of sub-standard shit is that? It's got to be trilingual, or no sale.


Seriously though, it's all vaporware, smoke and mirrors.
This is what Sony does. They hype the shit out of everything. Right now, all they're trying to do is steal a little bit of the 360's thunder.
As far as I'm concerned, the PS3 does not exist, it's vaporware. Sony has shown us zero evidence to back up any of their claims. No gameplay footage, no playable demos, not even a final controller design. I'm not holding my breath on any promises they make.

As much as i agree with you it is worth pointing out that the MGS4 trailer was running in real time on something.

Alpha, beta, whatever it's still not indicitive of the final hardware, however it's the one thing that isn't just Smoke.

[davidbrit2]

Just remember, guys: Quicktime Player runs in realtime too. Heh. After all that BS of presenting Gran Turismo 4's Photo Mode screenshots as actual gameplay shots, I ain't going to trust shit from Sony about graphics until I see it in person or from a 3rd party review site.

[njiska]

Just remember, guys: Quicktime Player runs in realtime too. Heh. After all that BS of presenting Gran Turismo 4's Photo Mode screenshots as actual gameplay shots, I ain't going to trust shit from Sony about graphics until I see it in person or from a 3rd party review site.

Ok, well according to a couple of reporter's during a presentation by Kideo Kojima (aka God) he moved the camera around to show it was in real time and somewhat interactive. Kind of like the UT 2007 demo at E3.

[devils advocate]

I heard the PS3 will be able to dispense bilingual ponies that shit gold. For real.

BILINGUAL? What kind of sub-standard shit is that? It's got to be trilingual, or no sale.


Seriously though, it's all vaporware, smoke and mirrors.
This is what Sony does. They hype the shit out of everything. Right now, all they're trying to do is steal a little bit of the 360's thunder.
As far as I'm concerned, the PS3 does not exist, it's vaporware. Sony has shown us zero evidence to back up any of their claims. No gameplay footage, no playable demos, not even a final controller design. I'm not holding my breath on any promises they make.

As much as i agree with you it is worth pointing out that the MGS4 trailer was running in real time on something.

Alpha, beta, whatever it's still not indicitive of the final hardware, however it's the one thing that isn't just Smoke.

But it is a mirror. And just 360 depleting hype...

I've got a question for Sony... Where's the beef?

They're doing exactly what they did prior to the Dreamcast launch. But I think with the amount of media available now, especially forums like this, people won't fall as hard for their BS.

I'll still buy one though, as I've said before. I just won't put any dolleros down until I see something a little more...real.

[Jibbajaba]

I remember reading humans can't detect more than 60 fps. Is that true, and if so, who cares if it can do 120?

BAH! 120? My *VECTREX* has a better framerate than that!

Also, what you are saying is true. 120 looks no better than 60 to the human eye. This is just some good ole' chest thumpin' and gruntin'.

Chris

[Zing]

120 looks no better than 60 to the human eye.

That's why everyone runs their computer monitors at 60hz, amirite?

There is some serious misinformation in this thread. You are free to search google for details, but to sum it up: Framerate is especially critical in video games where there is no motion blurring.

[Ed Oscuro]

In Reply To #Most everyone but Zing

Sorry, you're wrong.

The human eye can register information at least 220 times a second, and you can flash a picture of a plane in front of a fighter pilot for 1/200 (or faster) and they'll not only see it but probably be able to tell you what it is (that line's stolen from I am Speed, check out this discussion of the exact same news story here: GameSpy Forums (http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=1422&tid=1772288))

The human eye registers input continuously, and there are all sorts of interesting things it does to keep an image in your consciousness long enough to process it.

Yes, 60 FPS is usually sufficient, but not always.

One of the 'design flaws' in the original Half-Life I always mention is that the crowbar moved very quickly across the screen, and also a long distance. Even at high FPS counts - like 72 frames/second - you could easily see the crowbar's image splinter apart.

30 frames per second is simply horrible. 60 is good, but if you want to do anything really astounding, 120 would be a better choice - which would be a nice capability for future TVs. Even so, 60 is good, and Kutaragi's comment should be read as "yes, our console is just THAT GOOD. Suck it, Microsoft!"

What this means to me is that we should be able to expect no less than 60 FPS for games.

[AMG]

Ken is just doing his job. I take everything he says at face value, nothing more.

[GarrettCRW]

30 frames per second is simply horrible.

*glances at TV playing "Robin Hood Daffy"*

*glances at monitor*

*laughs at Daffy*

*glances back at monitor, still confused*

Given that NTSC monitors (read: North American and Japanese TVs) transmit images at 30 frames per second, your argument is higly flawed when talking about a console system. It's simply not possible for an American TV to draw more frames per second than that, period. (Plus, if you're watching something filmed on TV, 6 of those frames are basically partial frames. And let's not even start on animation that's done on twos.)

[poloplayr]

I can only sense 3 fps but then again I do tend to hit a lot of lamp posts.

[roushimsx]

I can only sense 3 fps but then again I do tend to hit a lot of lamp posts.

You just described my first time playing the driving segments in Mafia when I only had a 1ghz cpu and a gf2MX, heh

Anyway, I'm all for them pushing the fps standard further up. Also, I agree that the whole, "omg teh human eye can only see 60fps" argument is bullshit. While I'm not overly impressed that they're bragging about being able to do 120fps (shit, my computer has been able to do that for years in Quake 3, and it was essential to keep a steady 120fps if you wanted to be able to do all of the physics exploits/tricks), it is nice to see someone out there trying to improve more than just the resolution.

Let's just hope some developers can really exploit everything Sony is cramming in this sucker...which of course will take years ...but hey, i'm patient.

[Apossum]

I couldn't care less. 30, 60, 120, don't care, don't care, don't care. shut up and make some good games for the PS3, then I'll pay attention.

[THATinkjar]

120? Is that it? I was expecting at least 125. When is the PlayStation 4 due out?

[poloplayr]

Just after the xbox720, that means its twice as fun to play as the xbox360! wow, the future is so bright I need to buy new RayBans.

[davidbrit2]

Given that NTSC monitors (read: North American and Japanese TVs) transmit images at 30 frames per second, your argument is higly flawed when talking about a console system. It's simply not possible for an American TV to draw more frames per second than that, period. (Plus, if you're watching something filmed on TV, 6 of those frames are basically partial frames. And let's not even start on animation that's done on twos.)

Yes it is. NTSC is drawn at 60 fields per second. What does that mean? Well, it can do a complete ~240 line scan of the tube 60 times per second. Now, there's also this thing called interlacing. Most television signals (including current game consoles) do this. Basically, each field that's drawn alternates between all the odd numbered lines, and all the even numbered lines. So 60 times per second, you're seeing alternate halves of the image. True, an interlaced image only sends enough data for 30 complete 480 line images per second, but the technique of interlacing makes it nearly as smooth as a true 60 fps display, since each individual field can have an updated image 60 times per second.

In other words, there's a tremendously noticeable difference between Gran Turismo 4, which renders 60 frames per second, and Forza Motorsport, which renders at 30.

[Richter]

yea, but i'll take Forza over GT4

>.> <.<

[davidbrit2]

yea, but i'll take Forza over GT4

>.> <.<

Yes, but THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. ;-)

[njiska]

yea, but i'll take Forza over GT4

>.> <.<

Yes, but THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. ;-)

Not entirely. I've played both Forza and GT4 and honestly, while i can tell the difference, it's and ignorable difference that fades into the background. But again this all comes down to preception.

I think the bigger issue at hand shouldn't be trying to get a high framerate but trying to get a solid framerate. You'll notice a slow down more then you'll notice a difference between 30fps locked, 60fps locked and 120fps locked.

[davidbrit2]

Yeah, it's certainly a bit jarring if the game has to drop the frame rate now and then. Still, I think I'd rather have the game doing 60 fps most of the time, and only dropping to 30 in a few places, e.g. PS2 Rez vs. Dreamcast Rez, XBox Outrun 2 in very rare cases (usually online races), etc.

[Ed Oscuro]

30 frames per second is simply horrible.
Given that NTSC monitors (read: North American and Japanese TVs) transmit images at 30 frames per second, your argument is higly flawed
I don't even need to comment on this, seeing that you've already been served up a plate of truth LOL

30 FPS is fine for some applications, of course, such as many 2D games (though 60+ FPS is noticably smoother, and less strain on the eyes), but for certain aggressive 3D titles you'd notice the image splintering up.

I agree with everybody who says that, consciously, a standard framerate is more noticable, but again my eyes simply want a higher framerate. A while back I plugged in my N64 again (to S-video) and the difference in framerate gave me a few whanging headaches.

[davidbrit2]

A while back I plugged in my N64 again (to S-video) and the difference in framerate gave me a few whanging headaches.

Heh. Try a little multiplayer Gauntlet Legends, with the expansion pack. You'll get maybe 10 fps, tops. And when you use a potion, egad, you end up seeing like maybe 4-5 total frames of animation during the sequence. Ha ha.

[Ed Oscuro]

Heh. Try a little multiplayer Gauntlet Legends, with the expansion pack. You'll get maybe 10 fps, tops. And when you use a potion, egad, you end up seeing like maybe 4-5 total frames of animation during the sequence. Ha ha.
Hmm...I'll pass. I've done Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness with the high-res fuction, and the framerate is pretty much unplayable, though the game does look better (if this was emulation we were talking about...)

[CYRiX]

Only people who play computer games realize that probably from consoles dreamcast and up, they all can already run 120fps, in the system menu and not during the game. Hell windows runs above 300 for me.

[kevin_psx]

Ho hum

Just played a great PS1 game today - Medal or Honor. Yeah it was lo-res with only 200 scanlines -and probably only 15 fps - and looked pretty bad

- but still a hell of a lot of fun!




re: "humans can only see 60fps" that statement is like the "humans can only hear 20,000 hertz" statement. It's true for most humans but not all. Some hear as high as 25000 - some see as high 100.